EM Kevyn Orr: Taxpayers shouldn’t foot bill to defend ex-Police Chief Godbee

Quote:

---

Seven months after an internal affairs officer filed a lawsuit claiming Police Chief Ralph Godbee lured her into a sexual relationship with the promise of a promotion, Detroit’s new emergency manager, Kevyn Orr, is intervening in the case.
Orr, an attorney and restructuring expert, rejected the city council’s decision to hire an attorney to defend Godbee.


“He didn’t think it was a prudent use of resources to defend a man who was forced to resign from his position,” Orr spokesman Bill Nowling told us this morning. “An affair is not a part of a police chief’s normal duties.”

---

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2013/0...-chief-godbee/


I agree. And it's not just about saving money - this is not the type of behavior that the city should defend and indemnify. If he were acting under the color of law, sure. But this was way outside the scope of his duties.

I can't believe Council voted to pay for his defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasT

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2013/0...-chief-godbee/


I agree. And it's not just about saving money - this is not the type of behavior that the city should defend and indemnify. If he were acting under the color of law, sure. But this was way outside the scope of his duties.

I can't believe Council voted to pay for his defense.

---

If we don't defend our officials against lawsuits, they we can expect they will be more frequently sued by those with political agendas. He's innocent until proven guilty. I don't want taxpayers to be on the hook for all lawsuits, but I also want us to stand behind our people when they are attacked with political motivation.

More true for lawsuits. Less so for criminal charges. Especially unrelated to the job. I don't know the facts here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

If we don't defend our officials against lawsuits, they we can expect they will be more frequently sued by those with political agendas. He's innocent until proven guilty. I don't want taxpayers to be on the hook for all lawsuits, but I also want us to stand behind our people when they are attacked with political motivation.

More true for lawsuits. Less so for criminal charges. Especially unrelated to the job. I don't know the facts here.

---

We can defend officials against lawsuits brought for actions in the course of their actual jobs. I have no problem with that. This wasn't that type of lawsuit.

He admitted to the affair and stepped down. I'm not paying for his lawsuit because he couldn't keep it in his pants. That's why the ethics rules exist in the first place-to keep this stuff from happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

If we don't defend our officials against lawsuits, they we can expect they will be more frequently sued by those with political agendas. He's innocent until proven guilty. I don't want taxpayers to be on the hook for all lawsuits, but I also want us to stand behind our people when they are attacked with political motivation.

More true for lawsuits. Less so for criminal charges. Especially unrelated to the job. I don't know the facts here.

---

What does the presumption of innocence have to do with the city being on the hook for legal costs in a suit filed against him? I doubt your employer would agree to pay your legal costs should someone sue you personally for sexual harassment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What does the presumption of innocence have to do with the city being on the hook for legal costs in a suit filed against him? I doubt your employer would agree to pay your legal costs should someone sue you personally for sexual harassment.

---

If he acted in the line of duty, and someone filed a lawsuit against him, then yes, I would say the City has a right to defend him. I doubt extracurricular sexual activities are part of his official capacities. Also, unless he forced himself on her, IMO, she entered into a relationship with him, [[promise or not) of her own free will. Doesn't say much about her integrity either. As far as Orr goes, I'm liking him more and more.

Don't understand this at all. Especially coming from Mr. Orr who is an attorney. Isn't the City also a defendant and the real deep pocket in the case? As the deep pocket, doesn't it desire a coordinated defense to the claims? Isn't paying for the defendant-employee's defense the best way to get this given that individual employees perhaps cannot afford to hire an attorney? Isn't this done all the time? What is different about this case? Any attorneys know anything about this?

Regardless of the answers to any of this, former Chief Godbee made terrible choices in this matter and demonstrated that he was unqualified to run the DPD.

Didn't take a rocket scientist to make that call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What does the presumption of innocence have to do with the city being on the hook for legal costs in a suit filed against him? I doubt your employer would agree to pay your legal costs should someone sue you personally for sexual harassment.

---

I agree; anyhow "presumption of innocence" is meaningless here. This is a lawsuit, not a criminal case. The notion of presumption of innocence - that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt - is only for criminal trials. In a civil suit the standard is much lower: preponderance of evidence.

Even if the City is or was a co-defendant, that doesn't mean that the City should pay for the attorney for Godbee. I think Orr made exactly the right call here, IMHO.

Oh wow, looking through the City Council agenda, Orr denied approval of a lot of city settlements too. I guess he thinks Council wastes money by settling too many defensible cases. He is really going through this with a fine-toothed comb.

Saw this in Chicago - the city would settle cases before even investigating them. They were wasting a TON of money and it was a plaintiff's lawyers dream. File a suit, get $3K, $5K or $20K without putting in much work. Then Chicago adopted a "no settlement" policy and started fighting back - suit filings dropped like 50% in the first year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What does the presumption of innocence have to do with the city being on the hook for legal costs in a suit filed against him? I doubt your employer would agree to pay your legal costs should someone sue you personally for sexual harassment.

---

Maybe he was sued because of his job -- even though the accusation isn't job-related. If you want to torture a public official you don't like, and you know their employer won't cover their legal expenses, you can destroy them by accusing them of something unrelated to their job.

The city should err on the side of protecting those they put in such a position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

When you're a public figure as part of your job, you attract personal lawsuits. People who don't like you will sometimes file suit just to embarrass you, distract you from your public duties, or just to destroy you. If your public employer doesn't cover your back, enemies of you and City will attack you personally with unfounded allegations. Look at that HP guy [[Davis). He'll sue or claim anything just to get in the newspapers.

I don't know anything about this case. Maybe he's guilty as sin, and maybe it has nothing whatsoever to do with his job. But I wouldn't be surprised if this suit only exists because of his job. It offends me to pay for defense for an idiot -- but it offends me more to allow good public employees to be attacked and be financially destroyed with a lawsuit.

---

He did resign over this, you know. He didn't say "she's making this up and I'll fight it in court". I'm still a little amazed that she's that gullible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Maybe he was sued because of his job -- even though the accusation isn't job-related. If you want to torture a public official you don't like, and you know their employer won't cover their legal expenses, you can destroy them by accusing them of something unrelated to their job.

The city should err on the side of protecting those they put in such a position.

---

Nobody is saying the city shouldn't defend its officials ever. We all understand the concept and most probably agree with it. It's just that this case doesn't warrant it because he acted outside of the scope of his job [[and admits to it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasT

Nobody is saying the city shouldn't defend its officials ever. We all understand the concept and most probably agree with it. It's just that this case doesn't warrant it because he acted outside of the scope of his job [[and admits to it).

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasT

Nobody is saying the city shouldn't defend its officials ever. We all understand the concept and most probably agree with it. It's just that this case doesn't warrant it because he acted outside of the scope of his job [[and admits to it).

---

Objection withdrawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Thank you.

---

Agreed. 100%

so he didnt promote her?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasT

Nobody is saying the city shouldn't defend its officials ever. We all understand the concept and most probably agree with it. It's just that this case doesn't warrant it because he acted outside of the scope of his job [[and admits to it).

---

He merely admitted to an affair. I don't recall him admitting that he promised her a promotion. If he had, then there would be no need for a trial.

He is being sued because the officer is saying that she was sexually harassed on the job. I think she is saying she was denied a promotion that she was promised. If she wins, then the City is also potentially liable. The City's decision to represent themselves and not the employee now pits them not only against the plaintiff but also against the employee. They lose the ability to coordinate a defense. Godbee could throw the City under the bus by saying that affairs are common and well-known practice in DPD and the City has always overlooked it. Which might actually be the truth.

If she actually did get the promotion, that's even worse. Now someone might say there is a history of mistresses getting promotions in DPD. Makes the City guilty as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

He merely admitted to an affair. I don't recall him admitting that he promised her a promotion. If he had, then there would be no need for a trial.

He is being sued because the officer is saying that she was sexually harassed on the job. I think she is saying she was denied a promotion that she was promised. If she wins, then the City is also potentially liable. The City's decision to represent themselves and not the employee now pits them not only against the plaintiff but also against the employee. They lose the ability to coordinate a defense. Godbee could throw the City under the bus by saying that affairs are common and well-known practice in DPD and the City has always overlooked it. Which might actually be the truth.

If she actually did get the promotion, that's even worse. Now someone might say there is a history of mistresses getting promotions in DPD. Makes the City guilty as well.

---

He already admitted to having sex with her, give her the promotion and be done with it. What's one more incompetent administrator in the COD? She's fulfilled her end of the bargain, pay her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swingline

Don't understand this at all. Especially coming from Mr. Orr who is an attorney. Isn't the City also a defendant and the real deep pocket in the case? As the deep pocket, doesn't it desire a coordinated defense to the claims? Isn't paying for the defendant-employee's defense the best way to get this given that individual employees perhaps cannot afford to hire an attorney? Isn't this done all the time? What is different about this case? Any attorneys know anything about this?

---

Defending the City doesn't necessarily mean defending Godbee in this case. I'm not an attorney. I do know that the City does not need to defend Godbee's behavior, necessarily, they just need to defend that they have proper mechanisms, proper education, and proper enforcement to make reasonable attempt to prevent it from happening and punish it when it does.

More information here....

Quote:

---

To win, the employer has traditionally had to show that the supervisor or co-worker acted outside the scope of his or her employment, and that the employer did not know anything about it. If the supervisor demanded sex for pay or promotion, of course, the employer lost. Where the harassment was less blatant, however, the employer could win summary judgment by showing lack of knowledge.

---

http://www.employerworkplacelaw.com/...20Standard.pdf

For the record, I'm completely on board with Orr for this.

What do the COD guidelines say for inappropriate behavior with an subordinate? If it's "up to and including termination", then the COD has acted accordingly. Godbee was given a choice of turn in your resignation or be terminated. Godbee did not force himself on her, nor did the City turn a blind eye to his actions. What basis does she have for this suit, stupidity? This is just a gold digging attempt on her part to try to score some extra cash. It's the equivalent of a hooker going to the cops because a john didn't pay her, or a druggy going to the cops because "the shit ain't no good".

I <3 Kevyn Orr.

I'm glad Orr put his foot down. A waste of the city's money, Godbee acted outside of his official duties and should have to pay the consequences as such.